Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Not true. Even D.C. saw a decrease in illegal guns at first. The crime went up, but the amount of guns moving into the city is still less than before the ban.
|
you prove my point saying that making legal handgun ownership does not reduce crime, but in fact crime INCREASES!!! Why on earth do you want to subject law abiding people to be victims?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Then we are in agreement that the term 'defensive weapon' is an oxymoron, or a contradiction in terms. S bulletproof vest is an excelent example of a defensive tool. A gun is an offensive weapon (which is a term that I can now admit is reduntant).
|
Don't infer that. Thats like Bush calling it 'healthy forests' or 'clean air act'. You know thats not what I said just like I know thats not what you said.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Yes.
|
why? a bat or knife can be turned against you alot easier than a gun. with a gun, you can stop the intruder or aggressor with one shot. do you want criminals to have a better chance to win?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Ghandi didn't have an image to maintain, and neither did I. This is less about image, and more about peaceful philosophy being applicable to reality (the ultimate test of a philosophy).
|
I misstated myself. The 'image' I was referring to would be the aggressor, not the pacifist.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Then dress up like a werwolf. Guns aren't just to scare, they are to harm. If you kill someone who is breaking into your house, you are guilty of murderer, whether it is in self defence or not.
|
no its not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
This is where fact fades and philosophy comes in. This is on par with my philosophy about the death penalty. Only God has the right to tkae life, and anyone else taking life is disrespectful to life. Of course, this is my philosophy, not yours. I'm just trying to explain where my logic/hilosophy is coming from.
|
"If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft" (Exodus 22: 2-3.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
What if someone breaks in unarmed and you point the gun and they start to leave and you shoot them?
|
if they turn to run out the door or window when they see my gun, i'll try not to shoot but if they aren't fast enough, then see above.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
You misunderstand my question. When guns are deisnged, by gun designers, is their one and only concern to make the gun able to defend you from a criminal? Or do they also make it for military or police to kill people, or maybe to hunt. I suspect, judging by the availability of illegal arms, that the manufacturers don't care how their guns are used.
|
why does a law enforcement officer wear a sidearm? Is it to kill a criminal? or is it to defend themselves?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Well if they don't then they are breaking the law. You can't just not pass a lwa because people will break it. That's absurd.
|
whats equally absurd is passing a law that criminals have no intention of following since the gun they already have is most likely illegal anyway and disarming the public in the process. The government does not have the authority to disarm the public en masse and most especially the government does not have the authority to force the people to not defend themselves. The people have the inherent and inalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.